Posts: 3076
Joined: 11/26/2009 From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, AustraliaStatus: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Encircled Still not quite sure though what the Russian players on here are bitching about, it should be tough for the Soviets in '42, and as a Soviet player, I welcome that.

Me logistics.

And this thing of just optimizing everything disregarding all other aspects in the game that have become irrelevant - aha! in 1.05 just build cavalry armies, don't worry if the game feels like being about the Russian Civil War, in 1.06 will be armies of Rifle Bdes so it'll feel like the American Civil War - in order to come up with anything resembling a minimally effective looking strategy.

It makes me wonder what's the point of this very nice map, these very nice TOEs, these historical OOBs, these detailed game mechanics... why all that work? Why care about them? We could be playing Time Of Fury, or <insert here your favorite cookie-cutter "grand" strategy game>. Or checkers - just put a swastika on white, and a golden star in red. Much cheaper. Or tic-tac-toe replacing circles with stars and crosses with swastikas. Even cheaper, you don't need pieces nor a board.

I can suspend disbelief, of course, but you'll excuse me, this doesn't make sense to me.

Others' reasons to complain, to be honest, I can't fathom.

A tough 1942 is good for the game, indeed. The problem is that it's tough for the wrong reasons. Does that matter? Well, in this respect, to each his own, I guess.

Cavalry corps are not superweapons, they are after all roughly the size of the 41a cavalry division as the 41b "cavalry divisions" are regiment/brigade size. The reason they work well in the blizzard is because they have a good CV and are mobile. The support units you give them also boost their CV's.

It's mostly their mobile that you'll need to counter as the Axis, not their strength.

That's also my argument against nerfing them completely: they're good, but not too good, as they're just the first corps-sized unit you can create and attach support units to. A good Panzer division will blow it away in the open in non-blizzard weather.

BG, I agree the game needs to be adjusted to address one dimensional killer ideas; but the ideas need to be actually discussed and tried out in order to identify what are the potential problems.

This cavalry thing has been talked about for a very long time, as far back as beta. And unlike Pieter I lean towards nerfing, have for some time. They're the most mobile units in the Red Army and can actually conduct sustained marches because they can easily get at or near their maximum MPs. Last time I played out a full solo game they more or less won the game for me and led the march to Berlin, while the mighty tank and mech corps struggled for gas. They are not even that much weaker in TOE terms down the line. A fully tricked out 43 Guards Cavalry Corps has CVs in the mid teens.

Yes, even though I'm not too worried about the 1941 variant, the variants with tanks could be problematic.

We've discussed the mobility of cavalry units versus the mobility of mechanized/Tank corps and like Flavio says, the motorized units run out of gas whilst even though the cavalry corps also include many AFV's later on, their MP's are not really limited by fuel or vehicles.

Their mobility is a greater asset than their CV strength, but that's with mediocre morale as their cavalry bonus and the fact that they will generally over time all become Guards means you're running around with ~75 morale cavalry units in 1944, which will have impressive CV's.

The question remains though if those things are reasons to nerf the cavalry, or should be an incentive to find some way to get Soviet motorized units more fuel and an incentive towards investigating whether 60 Soviet national morale in 1944 combined with the other bonuses doesn't seriously unbalance the game due to the ability to create nearly unstoppable units.

I tried it long ago and abandoned it because it was problematic under the old rules set for various reasons.

But it's perfect the present game.

We may nerf cavalry corps at some point btw. They are probably a bit too good.

(In response to Pelton as much as FlaviusX)

This is the ongoing tension between 'gaming' the mechanics of each game system in order to 'win' vs. trying to persuade the devs to create a simulation of the historical realities.

The Axis lost WW2. Once they invaded the Soviet Union they were probably bound to lose. If players want a red vs. blue either side can win in the sandpit game, that's fine, but that game can't claim to recreate the War in the East.

Personally, I don't have an issue with getting my butt kicked by the Axis player, as long as events and play balance remain credible. In fact, I have foolishly limited my capabilities in order to keep things realistic.

However, the current March '42 situation is just ridiculous as any student of WW2 can see at a glance.

ORIGINAL: Encircled Still not quite sure though what the Russian players on here are bitching about, it should be tough for the Soviets in '42, and as a Soviet player, I welcome that.

I can suspend disbelief, of course, but you'll excuse me, this doesn't make sense to me.

Others' reasons to complain, to be honest, I can't fathom.

A tough 1942 is good for the game, indeed. The problem is that it's tough for the wrong reasons. Does that matter? Well, in this respect, to each his own, I guess.

I fully agree with you, B_G, except that I would stress that a full blooded Axis Panzer offensive commencing in March '42 is simply inconceivable. Having to invent a-historical responses to such blatantly a-historical events is ridiculous. I don't have an issue being knocked back beyond Stalingrad and losing Baku in the summer, but in March????

People can criticize the Sov players for whining, but as long as the game is merely a grand version of tic-tac-toe, people as going to complain.

To everyone, please keep your posts civil. No need to talk about German or Russian whining, or saying one side or the other is not thinking. Clearly we are closely watching this issue of March 42, as well as how things go in 41 and how things go in 42 and beyond. As I've said in other threads, it takes time and many games to get a good handle on what impact past changes have had on the game, and sometimes it takes time to see how tactics react to the changes. Exaggeration usually hurts a posters credibility. What helps us is all the various AARs getting posted. It was fully expected that we'd have to give it a bit of time to see how various games are turning out before coming to any conclusions, and that some further changes would be needed. Often it's easier to conclude a change is needed than it is exactly what change or changes should be made and the exact calibration of the changes. Thanks again to those continuing to post AARs.

I have a good idea how TDV is doing this Pelton, because it's something I'm planning to do to you if you ever want to play. It's not an ideal solution and incurs a serious long term AP cost, but it will deal with your blizzard tactics.

(Hint: cavalry shock armies.)

Since Cav gets a +5 Morale bonus for being Cav, Shock Army bonus will not apply. Use throw away Armies that can be disbanded afterwards.

"We are going to attack all night, and attack tomorrow morning..... If we are not victorious, let no one come back alive!" -- Patton WITE-Beta WITW-Alpha The Logistics Phase is like Black Magic and Voodoo all rolled into one.

Personally, I don't have an issue with getting my butt kicked by the Axis player, as long as events and play balance remain credible. In fact, I have foolishly limited my capabilities in order to keep things realistic.

However, the current March '42 situation is just ridiculous as any student of WW2 can see at a glance.

I find this attitude as expressed here to be typical of the attitude that when the Soviet Union acts a-historically, that's fine, but when Germany acts a-historically, the world comes to an end.

Soviets have superior command and control to Germany in 1941.

SMGs are superior to Rifle Squads, and 120mm Mortars are superior to 155mm field artillery.

Soviets can bomb the Luftwaffe into the stone age by December 41.

I can clearly see that this is not how World War 2 really was, so I'm a little confused why these a-historic positions are acceptable to everyone.

I'm a little over this feigned Soviet-side concern for history, please forgive me.

Any solution found to the maybe-an-issue of March '42 should take into account that when using random weather snow can occur in February.

Perhaps it's as simple as that the Soviets should use February to get ready, it is not the Axis players fault that the Soviet pushes over the limit.

I don't buy this.

To get ready for what exactly?

IF you don't push over the limit forget the guards... The offensive CVs will drop (ants again in your arsenal) and you will be spanked the same... But NO guards in the basket In other words, in march (as currently it is) you will lose the men you were trying to preserve in the first place (this we have seen in some AARs). But for nothing, nada, niente, rien de rien The guards are for ever though (as long as you don't allow the Germans to destroy them when snow appears).

I'm REALLY happy I didn't listen to those who were saying, thinking you have to somehow take the foot off the pedal... I followed my [e-killer] instinct and it paid dividends

I'm kind of fond of opportunity cost and choices to be made. That you choose guard creation opportunity is of course OK.

But I don't buy that the men would be lost in any case though I admit that I have yet to see a functioning Soviet deformation zone, to borrow a concept from the auto industry, able to contain or at least soak the Axis March offensive.

Gingerbread, I think it can be done, but not easily, and not for free. Even in the best circumstances you're going to be losing some units that are deliberately being thrown away as rearguards.

Which is as it should be. I have attached a pic of a combat result in July, 42 which I am still mystified about. In fact, I am still mystified in general about how the black box of combat resolution works. In any case, It seems to indicate that Big Red has plenty of horsepower to move heavyweight German units around....

No, I don't think it is as it should be. The measures involved are quite ahistorical and concede an offensive capacity to the Germans they simply didn't have and couldn't have had for supply reasons alone.

The real situation, without any special measures, ought to be a stalemate where both sides flop over in exhaustion.

The Soviet can manage this march madness, sure. He shouldn't have to. Things ought to naturally grind to a halt. Instead, he has to work against the grain of the system merely to prevent having entire fronts going into POW cages in March. I listed the measures uptopic, and they're fairly steep requirements and not at all what was done in real life.

Personally, I don't have an issue with getting my butt kicked by the Axis player, as long as events and play balance remain credible. In fact, I have foolishly limited my capabilities in order to keep things realistic.

However, the current March '42 situation is just ridiculous as any student of WW2 can see at a glance.

I find this attitude as expressed here to be typical of the attitude that when the Soviet Union acts a-historically, that's fine, but when Germany acts a-historically, the world comes to an end.

Soviets have superior command and control to Germany in 1941.

SMGs are superior to Rifle Squads, and 120mm Mortars are superior to 155mm field artillery.

Soviets can bomb the Luftwaffe into the stone age by December 41.

I can clearly see that this is not how World War 2 really was, so I'm a little confused why these a-historic positions are acceptable to everyone.

I'm a little over this feigned Soviet-side concern for history, please forgive me.

You probably missed it, but I was one of the Soviet players complaining loudly for many months that the Sovs were way overpowered prior to 1.5. I welcomed the efforts to adjust the balance but now feel it has swung too far.

Grateful if you could stop referring to my 'attitude'. It's not an attitude, it's a reasoned position and I adjust it as game balance changes.

No, I don't think it is as it should be. The measures involved are quite ahistorical and concede an offensive capacity to the Germans they simply didn't have and couldn't have had for supply reasons alone.

The real situation, without any special measures, ought to be a stalemate where both sides flop over in exhaustion.

The Soviet can manage this march madness, sure. He shouldn't have to. Things ought to naturally grind to a halt. Instead, he has to work against the grain of the system merely to prevent having entire fronts going into POW cages in March. I listed the measures uptopic, and they're fairly steep requirements and not at all what was done in real life.

OK you can all tell me I'm stupid as I have no idea how this game plays but I'm interested in the agruments with regards to playability from either side.

Not sure how it would work but wouldn't some kind of dynamic VP point system that changes during the seasons\years help mitigate these issues? That way lest say if the germans are being forced back the VP system realises that during that period it is mostly likely the case so the VP award changes to mstch this, aswell as having different VP's for each side (this may already be the case).

Anyway i expect it's a stupid idea. Just something that popped into my head.

Posts: 3076
Joined: 11/26/2009 From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, AustraliaStatus: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin Not sure how it would work but wouldn't some kind of dynamic VP point system that changes during the seasons\years help mitigate these issues? That way lest say if the germans are being forced back the VP system realises that during that period it is mostly likely the case so the VP award changes to mstch this, aswell as having different VP's for each side (this may already be the case).

Anyway i expect it's a stupid idea. Just something that popped into my head.

Not a stupid idea Wodin, it's just something which has been discussed to death :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlaviusX BG, I agree the game needs to be adjusted to address one dimensional killer ideas; but the ideas need to be actually discussed and tried out in order to identify what are the potential problems.

This cavalry thing has been talked about for a very long time, as far back as beta. And unlike Pieter I lean towards nerfing, have for some time. They're the most mobile units in the Red Army and can actually conduct sustained marches because they can easily get at or near their maximum MPs. Last time I played out a full solo game they more or less won the game for me and led the march to Berlin, while the mighty tank and mech corps struggled for gas. They are not even that much weaker in TOE terms down the line. A fully tricked out 43 Guards Cavalry Corps has CVs in the mid teens.

Of course they need to be discussed. But I couldn't help the "face palm moment". Now we have Pelton entering the "Soviet Pig Cavalry" crusade. It'll keep the forum lively, indeed, but it gets old with me.

And indeed Cavalry was a premium asset for the Red Army. But it wasn't their only effective asset.

quote:

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4 I fully agree with you, B_G, except that I would stress that a full blooded Axis Panzer offensive commencing in March '42 is simply inconceivable. Having to invent a-historical responses to such blatantly a-historical events is ridiculous. I don't have an issue being knocked back beyond Stalingrad and losing Baku in the summer, but in March????

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx No, I don't think it is as it should be. The measures involved are quite ahistorical and concede an offensive capacity to the Germans they simply didn't have and couldn't have had for supply reasons alone.

The real situation, without any special measures, ought to be a stalemate where both sides flop over in exhaustion.

The Soviet can manage this march madness, sure. He shouldn't have to. Things ought to naturally grind to a halt. Instead, he has to work against the grain of the system merely to prevent having entire fronts going into POW cages in March. I listed the measures uptopic, and they're fairly steep requirements and not at all what was done in real life.

That's what I wanted to hear: some sense.

Sorry to everybody if I sounded as a hyperbolic curmudgeon, I guess I take too seriously WitE. I still think it's the best portrayal of the Eastern Front at this level, but I don't understand certain recent development decisions. I just see the discussions here go and go in circles, and nothing being done at all.

I just see the discussions here go and go in circles, and nothing being done at all.

Unfortunately, it's just as frustrating for the testers as it is for you.

Ideally, there would be no arbitrary rules at all, but solutions would be found elsewhere (for example: instead of 1:1>2:1, make the Soviets better overall) or things would be scaled (for example: instead of 1 blizzard penalty for the entire front, make it scale to how far a unit is from a railhead).